McLean Trucking Co. v. United States, 321 U.S. 67 (1944)

McLean Trucking Co. v. United States

No. 31

Argued November 12, 15, 1943
Decided January 17, 1944
321 U.S. 67

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Syllabus

1. Orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission authorizing, under § 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended, the consolidation of certain motor carriers, and, under § 214 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, the issuance of securities by the consolidated corporation, sustained as within the authority of the Commission and supported by the findings and the evidence. P. 88.

2. The Commission having modified its orders by excluding one of the carriers from the consolidation, and the court below having determined the case in that posture, the only questions here considered are those presented by the modified orders. P. 70.

3. In authorizing the consolidation, the Commission did not apply improper standards and did not fail to give due consideration to antitrust laws and policies. P. 77.

4. The authority of the Commission to approve consolidations of motor carriers, which but for the exemption granted by § 5(11) might violate the antitrust laws, is not restricted to consolidations which are necessary in order to provide adequate service to the public. P. 78.

5. In determining the propriety of motor carrier consolidations, the preservation of competition among carriers, although still a factor, is significant chiefly to the extent that it aids in achieving the objectives of the national transportation policy. P. 85.

6. The Commission’s conclusion that the proposed consolidation was "consistent with the public interest" did not go beyond the standards prescribed by Congress. P. 89.

7. Although the Commission should have acceded to the Anti-Trust Division’s request for certain information from others bearing on the question of competition, its failure so to do does not, on the record here, require that its conclusions be set aside. P. 89.

8. The Commission’s conclusion that the consolidated corporation would not be "affiliated" with a rail carrier, within the meaning of §§ 5(2) and 5(6) of the Act, was supported by the findings and the evidence. P. 91.

9. Only the consolidation as approved is relieved from the operation of the antitrust laws, and any change in the status quo may be considered when such change occurs. P. 91.

48 F.Supp. 933 affirmed.

Appeal from a decree of a district court of three judges, refusing to set aside orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 38 M.C.C. 137.